Text Size

Key players in military sexual assault fight

It was a celebratory moment for the New York Democrat in her quest to remove sexual assault cases from the military chain of command — inching her even closer to the 51 votes she believes she needs to force the biggest change to the modern-day military justice system since its creation in 1950.

“My goal is to physically approach everyone,” Gillibrand said of her strategy in a recent interview with POLITICO. According to the whiteboard hanging in her office, adding Paul gets her within 10 votes of a simple majority.

But the New York Democrat’s climb remains steep: She’s facing down the full force of the Pentagon’s lobbying machine, a Republican-controlled House cool to her idea and a rival bill backed by fellow Democratic Sens. Carl Levin and Claire McCaskill that aims to stamp out military sexual assault without disrupting the chain of command.

Despite media attention to the role that the Senate’s women members have played in pushing the issue, McCaskill’s effort has proven to be one of the toughest obstacles to Gillibrand’s approach. And McCaskill brings a lot of credibility to fight, from her years as a prosecutor handling civilian sexual assault cases in Kansas City.

Normally that would add up to a looming defeat for Gillibrand, but this fight is unusual for a Senate that often splits on party lines — with Republicans and Democrats and men and women splintered on each side of the issue, creating unusual battle lines and an unpredictable outcome.

And with the added support from tea party favorites like Paul and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, who supported Gillibrand’s proposal last month during committee action, there’s reason to think Gillibrand could yet score an upset victory in the Senate.

As for winning over Paul, that took a bit of work. Gillibrand approached the Kentucky Republican on the Senate floor in July but he was not yet convinced that the Pentagon’s current command structure was doing such a bad job.

“Part of me is persuaded by the ideas that maybe people knowing each other too well in the chain of command can make the arguments less objective,” Paul said in an interview a few days after first meeting with Gillibrand. “I’m a big believer in fairness and making sure justice comes of it.”

But the Kentucky Republican said he wasn’t sure where he’d fall after reading an article in The Wall Street Journal showcasing just how difficult it can be to secure convictions.

“I’m also conscious of he said, she said stuff,” Paul said. “It’s not always easy to make these decisions. So I don’t know. I’m thinking about it. I haven’t made a complete decision about it.”

Gillibrand didn’t seal the deal until last Thursday after meeting with Paul and agreeing to some language tweaks that made it clear which military crimes would still be dealt with inside the command chain, including going AWOL and disobeying orders.

“Sen. Paul believes that the vast majority of our service members are honorable and upstanding individuals. In the instance when one is accused of a serious crime, especially one of harassment or assault, the allegation needs to be taken seriously and conflicts of interest should not impact whether a crime is prosecuted properly,” Paul spokeswoman Moira Bagley wrote in an email.

The Senate Armed Services Committee easily defeated Gillibrand’s amendment in June, but she believes it will fare better with the full Senate since lawmakers not on the committee might not share some of the same allegiances with the Defense Department.

“Our carefully crafted common sense proposal written in direct response to the experiences of those who have gone through a system rife with bias and conflict of interest is not a Democratic or Republican idea — – it is just the right idea,” Gillibrand plans to say Tuesday at a press conference welcoming Paul to her camp.

The New York Democrat will highlight the “strong and growing bipartisan coalition” to remove the command chain from prosecutions involving military crimes punishable by more than one year of confinement.

Her early targets for the floor included fiscal conservatives like Paul and Cruz, Republicans who have created problems for Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) in the past and could again pressure the rank-and-file members of the GOP conference. Plus, Republican Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mike Johanns of Nebraska and Chuck Grassley of Iowa are already on board.

Gillibrand has also shored herself up on the far left, picking up backing from the likes of Sen. Barbara Boxer and Chuck Schumer, who could protect her left flank against Armed Services Committee veterans like Levin and McCaskill.

Gillibrand’s push now is to secure about 10 more votes. She’s keeping to the same pitch that has worked so far, arguing case commanders aren’t doing enough to protect male and female service members from sexual assaults and they’re not encouraging victims to come forward to report incidents.

She’s also casting doubt on military leaders who have promised “zero tolerance” after other sexual assault scandals rocked their respective branches, starting with the 1991 Tailhook convention in Las Vegas involving Navy and Marine Corps officers who allegedly assaulted more than 80 women and seven men.

Democratic aides also pointed out the political peril that comes with tagging Gillibrand’s opponents — from either party — as part of the “hormone caucus.” That’s a reference to Georgia GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss’s attribution of the assault problem to young men who can’t control their impulses.

“Especially with some of the Republicans seeing what happened to Todd Akin, people will be running scared on this,” said a Senate Democratic aide working on defense issues, referring to the 2012 Missouri GOP Senate candidate whose campaign sank after he said women rarely get pregnant from “legitimate rape.”

Of Gillibrand’s bill, the aide added: “I think it could go well north of 51.”

But plenty of other senators are staying away.

McCaskill argued that the Senate could still accept an alternative plan that she worked on with Levin, though she acknowledged it has been a tough sell among some of her own colleagues who are confused about who’s on what side of the issue.